Comment by kulahan

As someone born in 1956, I and everyone I knew were great enjoyers of Peanuts, and I still appreciate those strips when I see them.

There's a combination of solace in the face of cruelty, humor, gentleness and truthfulness there that unique. Certainly, when I was older, I came to also love Watterson's and Larson's work. They have an edge that Shulz's work didn't. But his work had something theirs didn't.

I can understand how it could be hard for people who didn't grow up with Peanuts make their way into it. For people used to an edginess that Peanuts doesn't have, it looks merely cute. But it really isn't. There is a depth to the feelings Schulz portrayed.

Perhaps to really enjoy Peanuts, one had to have experienced the new strips coming out each day, which added a depth of knowledge about the relationships between the characters which was an essential background that is just not there when one sees a couple of strips now.

Watterson wrote:

> “The wonder of ‘Peanuts’ is that it worked on so many levels simultaneously.… Children could enjoy the silly drawings … while adults could see the bleak undercurrent of cruelty, loneliness and failure, or the perpetual theme of unrequited love, or the strip’s stark visual beauty.

(Regarding that last, Peanuts was displayed at the Louvre....)

It touches all the emotions and experiences, somehow being relatable to adults and kids at the same time. Its deepness and universality probably won't be apparent unless you read many of them - preferably the best, maybe one a day.

In the 80s I read all the comics compilations from the late 50s -> 70s, that was the golden age of the strip. It was an amazing comic and you'll see why all the strips creators since then were inspired by it.

I have a completely opposite perspective to you on this. I find the peanuts very poignantly captures the frailities of the human condition in a humorous manner.

I remember my grandmother saying that Peanuts characters look like children but spoke like adults and that was what she liked. Apparently, kids saying "good grief" was unheard of back in that time, as were kids generally being disappointed and sad.

I never enjoyed peanuts but I know Bill watterson the creator of Calvin and Hobbes was a big fan, so there must be something there

The only comic worse is Garfield. I have no idea how anyone enjoys either of them.

It might have been more like C&H or Far Side at one time, but by the time of the 80s when I first started reading the funny pages, Peanuts was just another mundane strip.

Early strips are very different. Dark, sarcastic, double meaning, lots of depth. They changed as Schulz got older and lighter, and that's what most folks know. But worth reading the earliest entries, and then see how those themes play out in the later strips.

Calvin and Hobbes tried to replicate that darkness but were more ham-handed. Still clever, but much less subtle.

its super nihilistic and depressive, its the best on making your feel bad

You have forgotten your child mind, Peanuts speaks fluently in the mentality of 7 year olds. It resonates childhood logic and contradiction. It's a masterwork of literature, as that child mindframe would not survive written as traditional prose, but is perfectly suited to a 4 panel comic strip.